tv The Ed Show MSNBC February 8, 2012 12:00am-1:00am PST
but he's not. at least not yet. not with this big night tonight for rick santorum. our msnbc coverage of the republican presidential primaries continues now. have a great night. good evening, americans. welcome to ""the ed show."" coming to you in minneapolis on the caucus night in the gopher statement nbc news predicts that rick santorum will win the missouri pry mampl santorum is also projected to uncommitted in 4th place.
in missouri it's important to remember, newt gingrich is not on the ballot. do not be looking for him among. santorum has 45%. ron paul is in second place with 27%. mitt romney is sitting in third place with 17%. newt gingrich brings up the rear here in minnesota with 11%. votes are still night for rick santorum. he spoke just moments ago. >> conservativism is alive and well in missouri and minnesota! [ cheers and applause ] your votes today were not just heard loud and wide across the state of missouri and minnesota, but they were heard loud and louder all across this country. particularly in a place that i suspect may be in massachusetts they were heard particularly loud tonight. [ applause ] >> as i told you earlier tonight on ""the ed show"" we are seein
ybak. great to have you with us tonight. what's your response to what you are seeing tonight, the conservatives out an about coming strong for rick santorum? >> first off, it again proves that mitt romney cannot win in the center of the country. the closer he gets to people the more they run away. and the latest flavor of the month, santorum shows he is out of touch with the middle class,
too. the republican message has become so extreme they can't decide who's more extreme than the other but they are out of touch with the american people. >> what about mitt romney? he's not selling well in the middle of the country. can he overcome this enthusiasm gap or does tonight start a longer, tougher run for mitt romney that he may not be able to overcome? what do you think? >> i was out month the western suburbs, west of minneapolis. what would be left of what is called the moderate republican party, if there is such a thing anymore, and santorum won that area. if romney was going to win anywhere it would be there. but there were very few people there. we had a smaller turnout than four years ago. there is a huge enthusiasm gap for romney. the others can't decide where to go and the fact of the matter is the single best organized campaign is not romney, gingrich or santorum it is obama. we had a great turnout here
tonight and we will do what we did four years ago. look people in the eye and do what mitt romney can't do. tell them the truth, deliver and win. >> what about rick santorum, is this a night that may put him on the ticket in one way or another? we are seeing mitt romney not being able to score in the middle of the country and if he wins in colorado tonight, this will of course give rick santorum more states than anybody else as far as delegates is concerned it may not mean as much but will buy him a lot of head lines and media attention. does this make him a player on the ticket if he doesn't get the nomination that he would possibly be a very strong vice presidential candidate because he is scoring well in the midwest? what about that? >> he won tonight but after a clueless speech like he just gave, i can't wait to have the contrast be played out. he wraps himself in the idea of the middle class. where was he a couple of months ago when the president was fighting for a middle-class tax
cut. where was he when the president saved the american auto industry that is making a million more cars. let's go to indiana, michigan, ohio and talk to voters, santorum, romney, whatever. and let's talk about the fact that one million more cars are made in america today because of the president's leadership and they would have let it go. i don't care who they put on the ticket. they are dclueless. >> it was interesting listening to santorum saying president obama wants to rule over you. and he says he thinks he knows better. and he made a pitch to the tea party crowd. is he becoming more extreme? he thinks he knows more than you do. what about? >> has anyone looked at santorum's voting record? talking about somebody who knows better he wanted to shovel his morality down the throat of america since the beginning of his political career. if he is about getting out of our lives, get out of our bedroom and value systems but
don't try to tell us that you don't want to rule america. you have been trying to shove your values down our throat since you started in politics. >> r.t. -- >> go ahead. >> ai do you think the most recent news cycle last 48 hours with the conceptive news out there and the catholic church and -- do you think this help ed rick santorum tonight? >> it is an interesting theory. it may well be true. the fact of the matter, the clear issue is about putting people to work. the fact of the matter is the president delivered 23 straight months of private sector job growth. that's the fact. that's where we will stick. santorum has always been about this idea of using right-wing, zealot's values to try to distract people from the core economic issues. people need to be put to work. the president has been fighting for the middle class. trickle down economics wouldn't work under bush, it wouldn't
work with romney or the president. stick to getting people to work. >> thank you for being with us tonight. thank you so much. >> now let's turn to richard wolf, bloomberg view columnist and msnbc political analyst johnathon alter and erin mcpike for real clear politics. it is an interesting night at the office. let's start with you, richard. what's your response? what's your view here? is this getting doubly tough for mitt romney? we are finding a real rejection of romney tonight in the middle of the country. what do you make of it, richard. >> if you are the romney campaign you can spin your way out by talking about the number of delegates that haven't really been allocated tonight and maybe he wasn't campaigning hard in these place and all of that stuff. deep down there are some troubling things. not just because he lost here but minnesota he won four years
ago. he is now the front runner and lost a state he won four years ago. missouri, you know, look, part of this process is not just winning the nomination but laying the ground work for the general election. in missouri some polls have him neck and neck with president obama. that is a state that john mccain won by a few thousand votes. given where the economy is, give en the politics of the state he should be way ahead and banking votes and having an organization regardless of how many delegates are there. his performance should have been stronger in missouri. not a good night. not just because he lost but what it says about the -- >> johnathon alter capsulize what happened tonight and what does it mean. >> if he goes 3-0 in colorado we set up an interesting contest in arizona on february 28th. it is a swing state this year. it will be the big primary to
determine whether mitt romney is a fatally flawed nominee. if rick santorum or newt gingrich who could make a third comeback were to win that arizona primary, then you know, to use the old clay shea, katie bar the door. then you have a long drawn out, totally open contest a couple of weeks after it seemed like it you better start listening to the voice of the people. why would you think he would be listening now? has he ever listened to the voice of america before? no. why? because he thinks he knows better. he thinks he's smarter than you. he thinks he's someone who is a privileged person who should be able to rule over all of you.
we need a president who listens to the american people. >> erin mcpike, it's going to be interesting to see how the media plays rick santorum in this age of citizens united, it seems me to that he has fewer resources and has gotten less attention than any of the candidates but he's selling himself as the strict kwefsh active and the true conservative and it seems to be working. how does this play out moving forward? >> you know, he stlulgts does have fewer resources, and the romney campaign can't help but point that out. but these wins tonight will allow rick santorum to go back to many conservatives across the country and say i'm the conservative alternative to romney, i am the real contrast to president obama, and he will then be able to raise a lot more money. both he and newt gingrich, too. newt gingrich didn't have a good night tonight either. it was a good night for rick santorum and bad night for mitt
romney. newt gingrich was in ohio today, and that's a state on super tuesday in early martha he may be able to win in addition to some of the southern states we're talking about. i think we're still looking at a three-way race with ron paul on this side as well. >> i was going to say that obviously rick santorum will raise some money from small donors after these wins tonight, but that's not what it's about this year. it's about big money, super-pac money, so the only real question for rick santorum is whether this guy foster friese who is a wealthy individual giving a lot of super-pac money to santorum, whether he ponies up more. that's the thing that's so disturbing about 2012, is that the future of had this campaign is not just in the hands of rick santorum, newt gingrich and mitt romney but of people like
sheldon adelson and foster friese and these small number of guys that put five, 10, 15, 20 million dollars on the table. >> but santorum is starting to get more conservatives to come his way, and that has been the real thing, who is going to be the anti-romney. it appears to be santorum. also, richard wolf, it's very clear at least in my opinion that ron paul is the throw-away vote in all of this. your thoughts going forward for him or if he even matters? >> he matters p if he's willing to take his supporters with him into a third party race, and there's still this debate could his supporters organize himself for this americans elect ticket and be there in the fall? so i don't think she could totally ignore him. he may drop out of the delegate contest in the early states. hard to see how he fares, because he doesn't have a money
either. i don't think you can discount him, and that's a vote he may get in the fall if he's still in there. >> richard wolf, jonathon alter, and erin mcpike, thank you souch many. coming up, they face political reality. raise money for democratic super-pacs on or lose to republicans. that's next. later a major victory for major equality in the courts. lieutenant dan choi and melissa harris perry on today's prop 8 reversal. in wisconsin another bad day for governor scott walker. a former staffer copped aa plea deal. full details ahead. stay with us.
president of the united states and his team is recognizing the political reality here. president obama still believes citizens united needs to be overturned or reigned in, but until then democrats must take advantage of the same rules as republicans or they're going to lose. democrats face the prospect of half a billion dollars in republican super-pac money from the koch brothers and karl rove's crowd, that's a half a billion dollars in negative advertising. democrats either get in the game, try to counter it, or lose. of course, republican presidential contenders mitt romney and newt gingrich have their very own super-pacs. >> this is a strange thing in these campaign finance laws. they set up new entities, which i think is a disaster, by the way. campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season. we ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and get rid of these super-pacs. >> romney used the power of a super-pac to go from a north carolina loss to a florida
win. when house speaker john boehner was asked today about the obama campaign daes decision on super-pacs, he said in. >> another broken promise. >> whether the rules was handed down boehner called it a big win for the first amendment. he said let the american people decide how much money is enough. let's turn to msnbc political analyst and bloomberg view columnist jonathon alter and "washington post" columnist ezra kline. a lot on the table here. first of all, the money war as officially started. johnthon i get a sense this is not the road that president obama and his campaign wanted to travel, but do they have any options? >> they probably don't have any options, but if you talk about leveling the playing field, that's not going to up happen. because the president has been against this kind of unlimited
campaign finance, it's pretty hard for him to now turn around and say to all these democrats who are philosophically opposed to this crazy system we had, now you take advantage of it. we want you to give unlimited donation to millions of dollars. george isn't going to be playing this time. there aren't a long list of billionaires on the democratic side the way there is on the republican side, so it's going to be a very uneven playing field. you have people like adelson saying after giving all this money to gingrich, he's saying he's going to put tens of millions of dollars into the romney campaign or into the romney super-pac this fall. so they're going to have a huge financial advantage and it definitely improving the od of mitt romney being the next president. >> ezra, how uncomfortable do you think democrats are going to be doing this?
you have senior officials and cabinet secretaries available for fund-raising events for priorities usa. is this an uncomfortable situation for them. >> i think they'll get over it. one thing i add to what he was saying, i don't think the philosophical discomfort creating a money imbalance in the 2012 election. the big problem for the obama campaign is they're big money in 2008 came from small donors but their big money, big contributors were wall street. that's where the money was coming from, and wall street has turned on them. they're funding mitt romney in a very, very big way. you have to ask what are the industries left to go to the democrats? the democrats have another problem, because president obama wants to raise taxes quite substantially on the rich. if you're a rich person putting money towards mitt romney, putting $10 million towards mitt romney it's a good business investment, tax investment. there is a large disparity in the industry supporting the two candidates. so the problem for obama isn't that he convinces democrats to hold their nose and do it this one time.
it's going to be he doesn't have democrats that have that type of money that support him at the level where they pump 50 or 100 million into his campaign or super-pacs aligned with this campaign. >> the first thing is trial lawyers. it would seem to me teld get behind the president of the united states. >> they're wealthy but they're not wealthy. they're not adelson wealthy. he just reported huge profits from his macow ka seens. he's under federal investigation for bribing foreigners, you know, and needless to say, if he puts in tens of millions of dollars into the romney campaign, you know, he has a particular agenda looking at it. >> you say the democrats can't match this? >> absolutely they can't match it. they have no chance of matching this dollar for dollar. what they're going to have to do is expand their small donor
base. they already have well over a million small donors. they immediate a lot more small and medium-sized donors if they have any chance of being truly competitive. think what this means in a small democratic sense, ed. on one side you have more than a million donors, average donation about $730. you have some bundlers on the democratic side who give 10, 20,000 and 30,000. on the other side you have a group that just met in indian wells, california, republicans. the kosh brothers are asking each to give a minimum of a million dollars, and he wants many of them to give more than $10 million each. that's a small group of individuals who are trying to seize control of our political system. that's not an exaggeration, and it's frightening prospect in 2012. >> no doubt.
finally -- go ahead, ezra. >> one thing i would add to that, though, because people look at elections over linearly. the obama campaign will end up having a lot of money. a couple of months ago they're the first to get near a billion bucks or a5 hundred million. they're going to get there. the obama campaign will have a lot. you hit a saturation point. you hit a point where every voter in every swing state sees these ads 10, 20, 30, 50 times a week. the amount of real sort of increemental value out of there backs less so. the other point we should make here is obama has come out for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics or limit campaigns. it does represent a new sort of -- a new way to square the circle. on the one hand i have to recognize the system is what it is, and i have to participate in it. on the other hand, i'm willing to sort r consider fairly extreme remedies to get the money out of politics once and
for all. >> great to have with us tonight. thanks so much for joining us. in psychotalk rush limbaugh is so desperate for president obama to fail he's making up lies about the january job growth. it looks like governor scott walker's legal problems are just beginning as a former top aide pleading guilty in court. john nicholls to join me on that. stay tuned.
and in psychotalk tonight noted conservative economist and college dropout rush limbaugh. rush is desperately trying to put a negative spin on the 243,000 jobs created in january. >> but even i failed to grasp this within the amount of the allotted time i had during show prep. we're still working on this, because i want to get to the bottom of it. i'm struck by the difference in the raw number of 2.5 million jobs lost and the government saying 243,000 were created. the bottom line is this. in a nut shell the withholding tax receipts numbers doesn't line up with employment. obama monkeying the numbers here, jimmying around with things in an election year designed to make things look better than they are. >> limbaugh admits he doesn't understand what he's talking about, but he's confident the president is cooking the books. he's wrong. here's how the murdoch owned
"wall street journal" explains the january employment report. every january, the labor department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population, the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. taking that into account, the employment population ratio went up. the unemployment rate wasn't affected. this means the improvement in the labor market is real. people actually found jobs. need more evidence, rush? mark zandy cheap economist at moody's and economic advisor to the 2008 mccain campaign called the january jobs report unambiguously good. mark zandy is a pretty smart guy. he has a ph.d. from the ivy league school of pennsylvania, but rush thinks he knows better. rush wantses the president to fail at all costst aaccusing them of monkeying the numbers is desperate psychotalk.
>> we're so grateful for the victory here today in a trial, and we look very soon to californians being able to wed again. >> a major victory for marriage equality in california. proposition 8 has been overturned, but there's a long way to go. gay rights activist lieutenant dan choi and harris perry are here with reaction. in wisconsin more bad news for scott walker isn't stopping the governor from raising cash. >> to counter the money from washington we need help from people in the wisconsin but across the country. >> john nicholls is here to fill us in. the komen controversy just gets bigger. >> karen did not have anything to do with this decision. >> i was asked to look at options. >> teri o'neal of the national organization of women is here.
this is the greatest opportunity i've seen in civil rights for in generation. your constitutional rights shouldn't have to wait. they really should not have to wait for everybody else it to catch up. >> the fight for marriage equality in california took a big step forward today. a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled 2-1 against proposition 8. the 2008 california ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, proposition 8, was approved with 52% of the vote. the law was first overturned in 2010 by a u.s. district court judge. today's ruling upholds his decision and could send the case to the united states supreme court. the ninth circuit's decision was very blunts. proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignities of gays and lesbians in california and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples.
the constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort. california governor jerry brown tweeted his support of the ruling today. the court has rerntded a powerful affirmation of the right of same sex couples to maemplt i applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision. same-sex couples will still have to wait to get married. however, the court ruling does not take effect for 14 days and prop 8 supporters vowed to immediately appeal the decision. either to the full ninth circuit kout or directly to the u.s. supreme court. let's turn now to retired lieutenant dan choi, an army combat veteran. he is now on the advisory board of the american foundation for equal rights. also with us tonight msnbc host melissa harris-perry whose new show premieres february 18th. lieutenant, good to have you with us tonight, and you too, melissa. how big a victory is this?
will it stand the test of time with the supreme court, if it goes there? >> it's an honor to be with us, ed. i love your show because you're not afraid to be loud. that's the reason why this is a victory today. there was some people in california who were not afraid to stand up loudly uncompromisingly for the full dmigt. that's why it's a victory much greater than what a court alone could say, but it really strengthens the backbone of many gay people, especially young gay people growing up. i don't think we can underestimate the social impact as well as the fact that if this does, as you said, go up to the supreme court, i think we have a great advantage knowing that the supreme court has ruled 14 times already that marriage is a fundamental right. >> melissa, where does this fall in terms of civil rights advances in america?
how big is this? is this a big benchmark moment for civil rights? >> this is. this is a really huge win. i want to be clear. marriage is -- in our activism around it we talk a lot about marriage being about love, and obviously it is about love and companionship and the ability to state your preferences and all of that. it is about much more than that when we start talking about the issue of political, economic, and social rights. marriage comes with aa whole series -- kind of a bundle of goodies from tax breaks to the opportunity to be with your partner in the hospital to the ability to make choices around custody for your children to the ability to travel together, to stay together. the number of rights and privileges bundled together with marriage mean that marriage is a fundamental civil rights to bar people from being able to part in that bundle of goodies,
economic and social and political is to make them second class citizens, even if all of the other civil rights existed and by the way they don't for lgbt communities. there are many issues of housing, employment and of custody where lesbians and gays and transgender individuals are legally discriminated against in this country. >> dan, this ruling specific, obviously, to california, but do you think that this will ignite a firestorm across the country, and finally will we get this settled once and for all at the supreme court? do you want it to go to the supreme court? >> absolutely i do. i think having ted olsen, former solicitor-general and a very well-known conservative litigator, wonderful lois, as well as david boyes teaming up together is a powerful message. love is not partisan. there's no party that knows love better than the other.
there's a lot of debates, this is a political show. maybe some people will say that some parties know how to love more than others. i want to say love knows no boundaries, and that's why this is such a powerful thing. it's not just california, though. the ninth circuit deals with washington. we have an important decision going up there, still washington state. i hope it goes to the supreme court. why? because we learned through this process of standing up and fighting for our rights, especially when you consider don't ask don't tell being repealed, there are soldiers serving overseas right now, and if they happen to be gay and they have a loving partner at home, what if they die? what the soldier dies, and you drape a casket with the american flag? are you supposed to say, let's cut out some stars and say, you know what? you're only equal in some of those states? no. we fight for an american and all of those states. i believe that love is really something that's worth fighting for.
>> dan choi, melissa harris-perry, great to have you with us. melissa, you know having your own show that time flies when you're having fun. >> of course. >> i wish we had more problem. >> we'll talk about it when it goes to the supreme court. we'll do it again. thank you to much. scott walker goes to national tv to literally beg for money. while his legal problems back home continue to mount. more developments today. john nicholls from "the nation" will join me for the latest.
coming up next, john nicholls has latest from wisconsin after a scott walker aide pleads guilty. more explosive developments in the susan g. komen controversy. it looks like someone is lying about who made the call to defund planned parenthood. we'll play you the sound and let you decide. stay tuned.
more trouble for governor scott walker in wisconsin. with a recall election looming, he's going to national tv literally begging for money. >> my hope is people can come and join us at scottwalker.org. to count the money from washington we need help from people in wisconsin and across the country. >> counter that big money? we'll talk about that in a moment. meanwhile, back in wisconsin one of walker's former aide pled guilty to campaigning for walker on taxpayer time. darlene wink worked for walker he was when a milwaukee county executive. today she had her day in court. >> how do you plead to the charge of political solicitation by a public employee as charged in count 2? >> guilty. >> wink told the judge she worked on invitations to friends of scott walker fund raisers while at her desk in the county executive's office? >> i was putting together flyers and that that were for a
fund-raiser. >> wink hopes to avoid serving any jail time by pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate with a probe into other current and former walker staffers. >> as for her former boss, on friday governor scott walker issued a statement dlaming he stroered to meet with prosecutors. here's what he told reporters yesterday. >> when you say voluntarily, does that mean you set the appointment up, or were you asked to come in at your best time? >> i have not received an official request for that. we offered to come on in. >> yet, when pressed further on the matter, walker acknowledged that prosecutors wanted to meet. they would like to talk to us about it, but we voluntarily set it up. joining me tonight, washington correspondent of the "the nation" magazine, john nicholls. what's going on here? was it voluntarily or did the prosecutors say it's time to meet with walker. you have to come in and talk to
us? what's happening? >> the governor has been under investigation and his campaign has been under investigation for 20 months. they've been asked to turn over e-mails and all sorts of data. it is clear and reported throughout the media in wisconsin that it was district attorney john chism that asked the governor to come in and have those conversations which will lead to testimony. the governor tried to get ahead of it. had to back off that claim of it being voluntary. >> what does it mean that one of his former staffers that pled guilty is willing to cooperate? it would seem to me that the net would spread out a little bit wider and would it encompass walker even further? what do you think?
>> it's very important what this former employee has agreed to cooperate with and what she's agreed to talk about. it is the destruction of digital records, particularly e-mails, and what you really get to here is the possibility of an obstruction of justice charge. that's a major felony. remember that in this woman, darlene wink's complaint, filed by the d.a., there were details of e-mails between her and a very close aide to scott walker, a gentleman named russell, who has already been charged with a number of violations. this is the guy who also is e-mailing back and forth with governor walker about lap up tops and computers. >> walker has hired two criminal defense attorneys. here's what he had to say about that. >> there are literally thousands of e-mails that our campaign has handed over. we skd for counsel and that to look through that. i'm not using pub funds for that nor do the public want me to take days from my time.
>> what can you tell us about the walker defense team? >> the walker defense team is not your typical lawyers for the politician that might have trouble with campaign finance problems or perhaps some office regulations. these lawyers who he has hired both list themselves as criminal defense lawyers specializing in murders, drug cases and issues before john doe inquiries. >> what about him just begging for money on national television. why is he doing na? he claims there's all this money pouring into the state. i'm told the democrats don't have any money in the state to do anything on to unseat him. this is a grassroots recall effort. that's what we count on, but yet he's saying all this money is coming in. what about that? >> since this recall drive began, the advertising that's been on tv in wisconsin has been scott walker ads and ads from groups that support him. scott walker has raised 12 million or month.
he spent more than 10 million in the last couple of months, and there has been no counter advertising by big unions. you will not find it on wisconsin tv. it's not there. >> john nicholls, good to have you with us tonight. we continue to follow the story. coming up, the woman at the center of the controversy surrounding the sue zam g. komen foundation resigns. what was her role to cut off funding to planned parenthood? find out next coming up in
ed, look five dwreerz from now. my prediction is the susan g. komen will not exist or it will be reduced to say between 10 and 20% of its current size. >> that was teri o'neal chairman of the national organization for women on this program last week speak being the susan g. komen foundation's initial decision to cut off funding to planned parenthood. in a moment teri will join us again. now the woman at the center of the controversy, karen handel, has resigned. she was thought to be a key player in the komen decision to stop funding breast exams for low income women.
the public's outrage led komen to quickly reverse the decision. today after submitting a letter of resignation, handel went straight to fox news. >> i clearly acknowledge i was involved in the process, but to suggest i had the sole authority is just absurd. >> her statement contradicts what komen ceo nancy brinker said just last week. >> karen did not have anything to do with this decision. >> yet, sources from inside koim mendel the huffington post handel was the prime instigator the in the effort. komen says its original decision was due to a change in grant funding criteria, not pressure from anti-abortion groups. handel, who ran for governor in georgia on a defund planned parenthood platform, says the moouchl by komen was never political. in fact, she puts the blame squarely on planned parenthood. >> the only group that made it
political is planned parenthood. it's no secret that foundations had been under some pressure for some years long before my time. komen was doing its level best to move to neutral ground. i was asked to look at options for doing that, some alternatives to do that. i looked at it and i did. >> i'm joined by teri oneal. thanks for your team tonight. i want to say that i think that your voice made a real difference in this entire conversation in this country. so i think that what i really want to know and that viewers want to know, does handel's resignation change anything? what do you think? >> no. i stick by my prediction. look five years from now, i don't think the susan g. komen foundation will exist in its current form. they're a political anti-abortion organization, and karen handel's resignation in and of itself has not changed that.
her resignation letter talks about how upset she is that her -- that her action was politicized. her action was political. it was politically motivated, and the blow-back against the komen foundation is an indication of how strongly people in this country feel that we don't want breast cancer politicized. that is what karen handel did, and that's what komen has been doing. >> what about nancy brinker's role in all of this? didn't she lie about who was responsible? >> well, it certainly seems like she did. the insider reports that i have read is, in fact, karen handel drove the decision. she was very insistent that they could find out -- come up with a fake excuse to defund planned parenthood, and the excuse that she preferred the most was the purely political investigation that's going on in the house of representatives against planned parenthood. then they had another excuse, having to do with direct services from mammograms which
by the way nobody's obgyn office offers direct mammograms. then they went back to the investigation excuse. the whole thing is really shabby. karen handel's resignation is a good first step, but komen has to decide if it's going to be a breast cancer organization or will it change its mission and tell its funders it has changed its mission to continue on this path of being a political anti-abortion organization. >> why did it take so long, or was this about the timing you expected? public pressure mounted within days, but some think it should have been reversed quickly. >> yeah. i think that it -- i don't know why it took so long. i'm glad that she has resigned. i'm glad that komen made the decision not to defund planned parenthood right away or at least to try to backtrack.
so but i think at this point people legitimately don't trust the komen foundation to be telling the truth. as long as that's the case, their future is really in question. >> teri o'neal, president of the national organization of women, great to have you with us tonight. i appreciate your time. this is a victory, is it not? >> it is a victory. it is a victory. it's a step up. there's a longer road to go, but this is a victory. >> all right. thank you, teri. appreciate your time. that's "the ed show." i'll be back live at 11:00 eastern time for another edition of the ed show. we'll have the poll results. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, ed, thank you very much. thanks to you at home for sticking with us. lots to come tonight that is total hi unrelated to 2012 politics. ted olson, the very famous and very conservative attorney who is challenging california's prop